Police Crash driver cleared of Dangerous Driving
Discussion
http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=131665&command=displayContent&sourceNode=124566&home=yes&contentPK=12515823&localNewsNodeId=124522
POLICE DRIVER WHO DID THIS GOES FREE
BY JO BURCH
09:30 - 25 May 2005
A policeman accused of dangerous driving for speeding at 90mph in a 30mph zone has walked free from court because of a "catalogue of maladministration".
PC Daniel Swain was answering an emergency call in the early hours of a frosty morning when he was in collision with a Vauxhall Vectra as it emerged from a side road.
His Vauxhall Astra, which had its blue lights flashing, then smashed into a house on February 20 last year.
His Derbyshire police colleagues investigated the accident in Shuttlewood, near Bolsover, and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided to prosecute PC Swain because the "incident data recorder" - similar to an aeroplane's black box - allegedly showed he was doing 90mph.
The driver of the Vectra has been charged with careless driving.
PC Swain (30), of Windmill Rise, South Normanton, who denied dangerous driving, was to stand trial at Derby Crown Court yesterday but the case collapsed.
Saying the CPS was "not likely to get a conviction", prosecutor Hal Ewing offered no evidence after Recorder Robert Glancy QC refused to allow him to rely on an expert's report which the defence had only just received.
Recorder Glancy said there was "no excuse" for it being served so late.
He said: "It seems to me that this is a prime example of the sort of thing that happens all too frequently and which results in the whole system of criminal justice coming into disrepute."
The defence was claiming the black box, which cannot be checked now as it is "no longer in existence", was potentially unreliable as it had not been recalibrated following an earlier minor accident.
The prosecution's new report, from black box manufacturer Siemens, was going to suggest that the black box was "not unreliable".
But its recording of PC Swain's speed at 90mph was in contrast to the evidence of PC Glen Dent, who was travelling 200 metres behind his colleague and said in a statement that he was never doing more than 55 to 60mph.
PC Dent's black box was not checked because he was not involved in the accident and was not activated, said police.
Four months ago, Judge John Wait had questioned the prosecution, saying: "I cannot see what the case is. I can see no prospect of a jury convicting."
Since then, two more judges had also asked why the CPS was still pursuing the case.
Mr Glancy told the court: "It's a great shame this wasn't a decision that was arrived at months ago."
He told PC Swain, who still faces an internal misconduct hearing: "You leave this court without any stain on your character or integrity whatsoever.
"If you were driving at 90mph, I could see why you would be criticised but there's no doubt in my mind that you were not."
Paul Smith, of Safe Speed, said afterwards: "This case sounds like a catalogue of maladministration.
"Cases like this are extremely damaging to the police/public relationship. The main damage is caused because the police are responsible for draconian speed enforcement - ordinary members of the public are prosecuted for safely exceeding the speed limit by just a few miles per hour."
A CPS spokesman said: "It was right to bring the case. It's regrettable that the statement from the expert witness was obtained too late to be used in evidence."
POLICE DRIVER WHO DID THIS GOES FREE
BY JO BURCH
09:30 - 25 May 2005
A policeman accused of dangerous driving for speeding at 90mph in a 30mph zone has walked free from court because of a "catalogue of maladministration".
PC Daniel Swain was answering an emergency call in the early hours of a frosty morning when he was in collision with a Vauxhall Vectra as it emerged from a side road.
His Vauxhall Astra, which had its blue lights flashing, then smashed into a house on February 20 last year.
His Derbyshire police colleagues investigated the accident in Shuttlewood, near Bolsover, and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided to prosecute PC Swain because the "incident data recorder" - similar to an aeroplane's black box - allegedly showed he was doing 90mph.
The driver of the Vectra has been charged with careless driving.
PC Swain (30), of Windmill Rise, South Normanton, who denied dangerous driving, was to stand trial at Derby Crown Court yesterday but the case collapsed.
Saying the CPS was "not likely to get a conviction", prosecutor Hal Ewing offered no evidence after Recorder Robert Glancy QC refused to allow him to rely on an expert's report which the defence had only just received.
Recorder Glancy said there was "no excuse" for it being served so late.
He said: "It seems to me that this is a prime example of the sort of thing that happens all too frequently and which results in the whole system of criminal justice coming into disrepute."
The defence was claiming the black box, which cannot be checked now as it is "no longer in existence", was potentially unreliable as it had not been recalibrated following an earlier minor accident.
The prosecution's new report, from black box manufacturer Siemens, was going to suggest that the black box was "not unreliable".
But its recording of PC Swain's speed at 90mph was in contrast to the evidence of PC Glen Dent, who was travelling 200 metres behind his colleague and said in a statement that he was never doing more than 55 to 60mph.
PC Dent's black box was not checked because he was not involved in the accident and was not activated, said police.
Four months ago, Judge John Wait had questioned the prosecution, saying: "I cannot see what the case is. I can see no prospect of a jury convicting."
Since then, two more judges had also asked why the CPS was still pursuing the case.
Mr Glancy told the court: "It's a great shame this wasn't a decision that was arrived at months ago."
He told PC Swain, who still faces an internal misconduct hearing: "You leave this court without any stain on your character or integrity whatsoever.
"If you were driving at 90mph, I could see why you would be criticised but there's no doubt in my mind that you were not."
Paul Smith, of Safe Speed, said afterwards: "This case sounds like a catalogue of maladministration.
"Cases like this are extremely damaging to the police/public relationship. The main damage is caused because the police are responsible for draconian speed enforcement - ordinary members of the public are prosecuted for safely exceeding the speed limit by just a few miles per hour."
A CPS spokesman said: "It was right to bring the case. It's regrettable that the statement from the expert witness was obtained too late to be used in evidence."
Two interesting points (for me anyway):
1) was the chap who pulled without looking done for careless driving? Could he have been at fault? (he was only briefly mentioned)
2) the plod behind disagreed with the mechanical speed reading from the black box of the plod in front, something many MOP allege but are quickly dismissed.
From the snippet of info I have read, 90 or not, it sounds like the situation could have been far worse, fortunately it wasn’t. It’s his responsibility to anticipate and compensate for the numptiness of other drivers; that plod did not take enough precautions and so placed others in a dangerous position. He should not have got off.
1) was the chap who pulled without looking done for careless driving? Could he have been at fault? (he was only briefly mentioned)
2) the plod behind disagreed with the mechanical speed reading from the black box of the plod in front, something many MOP allege but are quickly dismissed.
From the snippet of info I have read, 90 or not, it sounds like the situation could have been far worse, fortunately it wasn’t. It’s his responsibility to anticipate and compensate for the numptiness of other drivers; that plod did not take enough precautions and so placed others in a dangerous position. He should not have got off.
This whole thing is a bit of a mess really.
If the policeman was doing 90 in a 30 then that is totally wrong and he should have been done for something.
Was reading about this in the paper this morning. We all know how unreliable papers can be but they have said that the Vectra driver is being done for dangerous driving. How and why is this so? If you get hit by an idiot copper doing 90 in a 30, what do YOU have to do to become the guilty one (apart from the obvious pulling out in front from a side road junction etc)??
Its also odd that people have said that the case was doomed to be a failure as well, like some others have commented above. Why was money wasted on this??
Finally, and what I find the most interesting comment, is the one about how the black box data logger wouldn't have been 'accurate' for the trial. Siemens who made the logger said it was accurate at the time, the police said otherwise. Also, how come the data logger has disappeared over time???
Makes you wonder doesn't it, if the police can say that electronic equipment they use is inaccurate when its one of them in the dock and when it suits them, how can they rely on equipment for speed checks (such as gatsos and hair dryers etc etc)?? Surely these speed cameras are not reliable too so how can they prosecute people with them??
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Thursday 26th May 09:30
If the policeman was doing 90 in a 30 then that is totally wrong and he should have been done for something.
Was reading about this in the paper this morning. We all know how unreliable papers can be but they have said that the Vectra driver is being done for dangerous driving. How and why is this so? If you get hit by an idiot copper doing 90 in a 30, what do YOU have to do to become the guilty one (apart from the obvious pulling out in front from a side road junction etc)??
Its also odd that people have said that the case was doomed to be a failure as well, like some others have commented above. Why was money wasted on this??
Finally, and what I find the most interesting comment, is the one about how the black box data logger wouldn't have been 'accurate' for the trial. Siemens who made the logger said it was accurate at the time, the police said otherwise. Also, how come the data logger has disappeared over time???
Makes you wonder doesn't it, if the police can say that electronic equipment they use is inaccurate when its one of them in the dock and when it suits them, how can they rely on equipment for speed checks (such as gatsos and hair dryers etc etc)?? Surely these speed cameras are not reliable too so how can they prosecute people with them??
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Thursday 26th May 09:30
funkiest robotic one said:
This whole thing is a bit of a mess really.
If the policeman was doing 90 in a 30 then that is totally wrong and he should have been done for something.
Ist interesting - his colleague says it was only 55m/60mph
funkiest robotic one said:
Was reading about this in the paper this morning. We all know how unreliable papers can be but they have said that the Vectra driver is being done for dangerous driving. How and why is this so? If you get hit by an idiot copper doing 90 in a 30, what do YOU have to do to become the guilty one (apart from the obvious pulling out in front from a side road junction etc)??
Ist a bit silly. Perhaps the driver pulled out und should have waited as BiB mit flashing lights und siren? was approaching at great speed. But on other hand - if you are in urban area ist also reasonably foreseeable that a driver will be driving und complying mut the speed limit - und may not expect a car to close in so fast when he makes the turn into the main road. Do not know the road lay-out here - but perhaps there should have been a lot more caution even at 60 mph in a town centre. We already know that pedestrians walk into path of police cars mit sirens und so on.
funkiest robotic one said:
Its also odd that people have said that the case was doomed to be a failure as well, like some others have commented above. Why was money wasted on this??
Ist CPS und twazak clerical workers within them.
funkiest robotic one said:
Finally, and what I find the most interesting comment, is the one about how the black box data logger wouldn't have been 'accurate' for the trial. Siemens who made the logger said it was accurate at the time, the police said otherwise. Also, how come the data logger has disappeared over time???
Ist very strange.... ist like "not being able to rightly recall who was driving at the time
" funkiest robotic one said:
Makes you wonder doesn't it, if the police can say that electronic equipment they use is inaccurate when its one of them in the dock and when it suits them, how can they rely on equipment for speed checks (such as gatsos and hair dryers etc etc)?? Surely these speed cameras are not reliable too so how can they prosecute people with them??
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Thursday 26th May 09:30
Liebchen
I do declare you are getting educated. Ist exactly the point...over reliance und cases of false prosecution from the not not isolated. There must be countless more who do not even know their NIP was faulty und paid up because of the draconian und sledgehammer way of insisting you confess und pay. Ist not easy to get hold of the "evidence" before the court date either...und many are put off from querying by wording of this document. Und in the meantime - RoSPA confirm from survey more und more take chance mit a drink as "less chance of pull from BiB" und general standard falls - even if they are at speed limit
WildCat said:
Liebchen
Und in the meantime - RoSPA confirm from survey more und more take chance mit a drink as "less chance of pull from BiB" und general standard falls - even if they are at speed limit
These are the most important points as far as I can see. (apart from the "convenient" loss of the black box.)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff